Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing – forfeiture — cruel and unusual punishment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 30, 2011//

Sentencing – forfeiture — cruel and unusual punishment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 30, 2011//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing – forfeiture — cruel and unusual punishment

A $279,500 forfeiture is not excessive punishment for structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements.

“Malewicka goes on to note that the forfeiture is particularly unfair because the funds did not belong to her. This fact, however, does not alter the Bajakajian analysis. In Castello, the amount of forfeiture was based on the structure proceeds of checks cashed at the defendant’s check cashing business. Castello, 611 F.3d at 120- 124. Similarly, in Ahmad, 213 F.3d at 817, the forfeiture amount was based on the amount of structured funds sent on behalf of clients at the defendant’s money exchange business. Moreover, the statute specifies only that the forfeiture be based on property involved in the offense. That the funds were not Malewicka’s is of no consequence.”

“Considering all of the factors, we affirm the forfeiture award entered by the district court. In doing so, we recognize that the forfeiture amount is not an insubstantial amount. However, when weighing the forfeiture against the severity of Malewicka’s crime, we do not find a constitutional violation.”

Affirmed.

10-3967 U.S. v. Malewicka

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Flaum, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests